I think we can all rested assured that we'll definitely be seeing the Arkenstone now. Whether those old rumors about it being taken out were true or not, it would be silly not to include it now that they're stretching the story over three films.

Well, I've already proposed that most of the Dol Guldur story would be finished by this point (perhaps the Council is still mopping up after the assault and securing the fortress). Even adding some background history, I don't think that the Bot5A has enough material, by itself, to sustain an entire feature film. I think that we need to include the events leading immediately to the death of Smaug to justify a third film.

The reason I would disagree with this scenario is that if Dol Guldur wraps up in the second film, then there is no story left to tell on explaining where Gandalf disappears to until he turns up at the Battle Of Five Armies. I think it's unlikely that PJ would want Gandalf dropping out of the picture for most of the third film, therefore it would only make logical sense that the Dol Guldur storyline conclude early on in the third film.

For me, the LOTR films suffered because when PJ had a choice between upping the action ante, and including the nuance that exists in the novels, he chose the former. When he did not have this stark choice, as in the Shire scenes, the films progressed wonderfully. Has PJ been given six films to tell LOTR, I am almost 100% sure they would have been better.

In that sense, I think more time means that PJ will not have to choose between action and quiet, bombast and subtlety. He can include all of it.

If we're getting a LOTR prequel, and not the Hobbit book we know, I would rather he take his time in telling it, than rush from action scene A to action scene B.

I think that 3 movie is too much for a book like The Hobbit. It seems to me that two was good enough to explore the story without neglecting and 'shortcutting' lots of elements as has been done with the LOTR trilogy. They give the argument that a third will allow them to explore even more of the storie and his background but my guess is that they're gonna add lots of 'invented' stuff, fan-fiction style based on their interpretation and perhaps even stray at times from the the main story which is Bilbo's adventure. I mean that's what The Hobbit is about. I may be wrong but one might thing that there is money question behind this, that they will stretch this as much that it can possibly be done because there ain't gonna be anything else of Tolken's work on screen. Thrid film for The hobbit when FOTR got one, not so consistent to me...

#2. Mirkwood and the "battle" of Dol Guldur. Ends with The escape of The Dwarves from The Woodland Realm and a cliff hanger at Dol Gulder.

#3. The Rest of the story. Lake Town, The Smaug stuff & The Battle of Five Armies. This will end with the return to Hobbiton and perhaps a final visit from Balin.

Film #1: The full White Council probably does not meet at Rivendell. This seems to be a more informal gathering only including Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel. I would expect the actual debate with the full council to occur in Film #2.

Film #2: I would conclude the assault on Dol Guldur, but we might not see all of the consequences of the attack until Film #3.

Film #3: As you say. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

I'll go see the first, if I love it, I'll see the 2nd theatrically and if I'm still interested I'll see the third theatrically but they'll have to thrown in a lot of Durin's Folk from the appendices to get my goat and my $.

I was just fine not seeing the latter two LoTR films in the theatres and felt I missed nothing by doing so.

I am a Hobbit fan first (the dwarves) and an LoTR last. Hopefully, I'll just eat my words love the bloody blue blazes out of this trilogy. If not, that's fine too. Thus far, I am very underwhelmed and this doesn't help - but these are not being made for me so... "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere." - Albert Einstein.

The reason I would disagree with this scenario is that if Dol Guldur wraps up in the second film, then there is no story left to tell on explaining where Gandalf disappears to until he turns up at the Battle Of Five Armies. I think it's unlikely that PJ would want Gandalf dropping out of the picture for most of the third film, therefore it would only make logical sense that the Dol Guldur storyline conclude early on in the third film.

Gandalf does not have to drop out of the film. We can still be shown the aftermath of the assault as the Council secures the fortress and deals with any suprises (traps) that the Necromancer has left for them. Wights or lesser Wraiths might be waiting for them in the dungeons, for example. Or, Gandalf might try to track the Necromancer's retreat, perhaps with the aid of Elladan and Elrohir and some of the Dunedain (assuming any of these were present). "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

Does that mean the titles are now "An Unexpected Journey", "There", and "Back Again"? ;)

I'm not sure what to think about this. I thought the idea of two films was perfect. I'm sad to lose the prospective duology. IF however PJ speaks the truth when he says the decision was made purely to make sure more of the story stays in the movies, then huzzah, I couldn't be happier. I just can't help but doubt that that's the case. If we have a trilogy I want the extra film's worth of footage to be Hobbit footage and not White Council or Dol Guldur footage.

I love The Hobbit. It's been one of my favorite books since I was five years old. And I can, I suppose, see how it could potentially be expanded to fit three films--it is a very, very eventful story, more a series of episodes than LotR's series of setpieces, so although that might be slim on the page it could take up a lot of time on screen, particularly when considering that characters like Bard and all the dwarves are also going to be developed a lot more fully. I just hope that is in fact what's going to happen. This has to stay BILBO's story. The footage at Comic-Con looked pretty much perfect, so if we really get three films of that quality with that sort of spirit then I'm ecstatic; I'm just really hoping now that is the case.

That's just the style of adaptation favoured by Jackson, Walsh and Boyens. They weave new storylines to deal with perceived problems in the original text. It's the reason Aragorn was retrofitted into a reluctant king, and it's the reason we're getting a female warrior Elf.

Now that we know we're getting three films, at least we can be reasonably confident that Tolkien's story and the screenwriters' additions won't be competing for screentime – both will have plenty of room to breathe.

"You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain."

Just woke up to this, and I am very quietly and perfectly happy. Wow.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Am off to wander around the streets of Wellington today for breakfast, second breakfast, luncheon and afternoon tea with friends, just being happy for all of us here who are happy now and for all who, I do sincerely hope, will be happy later. Peace and love!

I don't have to be a filmmaker. I just need to be able to read and count.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

The Lord of the Rings is 1,000-plus pages of densely written story (and it's NOT all descriptions of walking and flowers) with multiple plot lines.

The Hobbit is 300 pages of still excellently crafted but much lighter material that basically follows one plot line.

It should be self-evident that, without a lot of extraneous padding, there is not three films-worth of material in the Hobbit.

I don't know anything about GDT, so I have no opinion of his opinion. However, as I said, I have seen Jackson's LOTR and I don't hold him in quite as high esteem as other people do. His LOTR was adequate, and no more.

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)

However, I think your initial reaction may be a little too negative given how much we DON'T know about the planned movies. One thing we do know, from which we can extrapolate and speculate - PJ said "An Unexpected Journey" (prior to the 3-film announcement) was going to run "at least two and a half hours." That is a solid indication that 1. it probably stood little chance of being longer than 3 hours, and 2. both films together were likely not going to be more than six. A third movie is being added, but we already know that not much more shooting will be done to realize this movie - whatever footage they have is already in the can, except for some light pick-ups and a little extra shooting planned for next summer. By no means will they be filming enough extra footage for an entire separate movie; it will largely be drawn from what they have.

So what can we realistically expect? I'd suggest probably three movies about 2.5 hours long apiece. I'd be surprised if they go much more than that, or if the whole thing ends up being more than 8-9 hours. That does seem long for "The Hobbit," but maybe not that long for "The Hobbit + The Appendices" and still substantially less than the extended Lord of the Rings (which was over 11.5 hours).

The Hobbit is a 500.000 signs novel. The Lord of the Rings is a 2.450.000 signs monster, nearly 5 times bigger.

I was dubious of the need of making 2 movies, but assuming there were plenty of non-Hobbit scenes of the White Council, Dol Guldur and the like, it was loosely realistic.

Even with a mere 6 hours for the Hobbit, it would still mean that the movie treatment would bring a book-length to movie-length ratio that would be 2.5 times lower than LOTR Extended Edition. If we end up with a 7.5 h trilogy, this becomes quite ludicrous, unless most of the last 2 hours are bridge stories - which apparently they wouldn't be able to do.

So, why shorten the movies into 3 parts instead of 2? Is it because they think it'll be easier for little kids (assuming they consider the Hobbit to have children as their core demographics, not just young adults and adults like with LOTR) to sit through a 2-h movie rather than a 2h45 one? Do they want to milk the spectators a bit more? Do they have other better reasons that, hopefully, will be made clearer in the future, allowing me to change my current opinion?

I could copy/paste most of Aragorn the Elfstone''s reaction to this news - except that "ridiculous" is the most charitable word I could use to describe my opinion of this move. And I'm definitely not one who thought that the LOTR movies were "just ok"; I'm clearly of the opinion that, despite some problems, they were a real success. "Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Everything about this process has been such a roller coaster ride of good news bad news. GDT's involvement and departure, 3D or not 3D, 1 film or 2, New Zealand or elsewhere. Production blogs got me excited again and now it takes yet another plunge. Imagine reading the Hobbit and every time it starts getting really good put the book down and start reading the appendices or some other bit of material. I wonder if they are that confident about the non Tolkien fans. Are there enough true fans to fill seats for 3 watered down, drawn out sections of a fairly short story? Will movie goers who are not big fans in the first place even bother? I guess time will tell. My vote is still for one really great film. 2 I could live with depending on how they are handled. 3? I'm worried. Plant Trees